I seriously don't get his motivations for staying in that long. He's a smart man and he knew he didn't have a chance of winning like 2 months ago. All he did by staying in is divide the conservative vote and cause Santorum to lose. I guess Newt's giant ego trumped common sense.

Ikki if you're not going to be able to make a point without coming across being so sanctimonious and condescending then I suggest you go elsewhere. It's not your opinions which have done the most to alienate every single poster in this thread from you, though undoubtedly it has contributed, it is your posting style, which consistently takes a smug ("Chances are I've heard it anyway"? Really?), high and mighty ivory-tower tone with others. As Hurricane has hinted, it is patronising and tiresome and has driven more or less everyone from the thread. It's fine to have a different opinion, it is most definitely not fine and incredibly tunnel-minded to make the presumption that others' opinions are of lesser value because they don't agree with yours and it is absolutely abhorrent, IMO, to be making snide insinuations about the mental faculties of other posters who disagree with you to rationalise why they might disagree, which is what you are effectively doing by labelling them as "indoctrinates". Whilst I take an aggressive style of debating myself, I'd hope I'd not fall into this trap with those who disagree with me are automatically less intelligent than me. It is entirely reasonable that Burgey or I would have studied the world, studied how society and history has been shaped by economic events and come to an entirely different conclusion. That is not indoctrination, that is how we come up with opinions. Accept that or go elsewhere.

I've gotten nothing but indignant and immature posting from you and others simply for stating my persuasions. On that account, you have no right to post the above. If I have been rude, I have at least had the decency to rationalise and explain my position. You have not done so. Worse, you have shown a clear lack of appreciation for even the most basic tenets of my argument - yet you had the temerity to come in posting as if I didn't know what I was talking about or that I was living in some fantasy land. Remember, you started that nonsense.

And I do not take potshots at anyone's mental faculties - or I don't mean to. I think this is a great forum for people here are generally much more intelligent and considerate. It is probably the subject matter which like religion is hard to discuss without offending somebody.

As for you or Burgey coming to different conclusions; I have invited both of you to enter this debate and explain why. As I said to sledger pages ago, I am always open to change. The irony is that you do not have this contemplation to understand that I have done a lot of reading on this issue and might possibly know more than you. But I still explain my position in the hope that you might have something to contribute for which I may not have an answer to and will reconsider my position.

I will say this: what you are arguing I have already heard if not argued myself some while ago. And that is why I am confident in defending my position. I am not sure about you, however, who now in several discussions have only jumped in to insult me or create comparisons between myself and some crazy people. That to me is far more tunnel-minded and is somewhat transparently showing your insecurity to have this discussion.

On Friedman, he is undoubtedly one of the greatest economic thinkers of the 20th century but he is not the only economic thinker. That you would so consistently and regularly simply reply to an argument by quoting or, worse, posting a youtube link is deeply alarming as it suggest that you yourself have not given adequate critical thought to the matter. No human being will ever, ever agree with another entirely if they have thought about their opinion properly, even up to minor differences. To constantly repost the same person, cite the same source, is truly infuriating. It contributes to the smug air of the posts by making it look as if you have a prefabricated argument for whatever (and hence no actual argument at all) and more to the point, no one here is arguing with Friedman who (a) wrote his critical works many years ago, (b) is dead, (c) is not you, who is the person we are arguing with. The expectation is that you should be able to argue your case without relying on the same fallback every single time. In my opinion, the two greatest minds of the 20th century were Albert Einstein and Richard Feynman, but I would argue that Einstein wasted the last half of his life working on a premise I would say is patently false and he should have recognised it as such - half - and I have deep reservations about Feynman's politics. It just goes to show, if you find yourself agreeing with the same person over and over to an overwhelming extent, it suggest you haven't thought about the matter properly. Moreover, that you consistently reply with the same theoretical arguments, without any citation of empirical evidence of their validity does not endear others to your view. Smart people are by their nature inherently skeptical and pragmatic; theoretical arguments will not convince someone. Hard, on-the-ground, detailed evidence at a micro level, which is what people care about, will.

I have studied this issue more than I care to say. I've studied the political and legal sides to it as well. The latter two tying into my degree. If I post a video it is a shortcut I hope you follow. I can ask you to read books or articles but that requires too much of your time so I post a video which clearly demonstrates the point anyway. Do not mistake that shortcut I route for you as my taking a shortcut in learning this. The fact that I can discuss this issue with depth should show otherwise.

Moreover, I have cited articles - scholarly and otherwise - to show my point; so the claim that I exclusively point to one source is incorrect. In my opinion, it is also irrelevant. If one source has all the answers, then so be it. This picking of sources is just an aside for you to deny what is said. If I cite Friedman and you believe him to be false, then discuss that. Otherwise, it shouldn't matter. What matters is who is right. The two greatest economists of the last century were arguably Keynes and Friedman; the former's work is somewhat discredited for being wrong in many instances and some still ongoing today. Friedman's appeal lasts. Would it make a difference if I cited Hayek - one of the other giants in economic thought - saying basically the same things about government intervention? Ironically, Hayek, who knew Keynes, said he wouldn't have taken his own doctrine as many of his disciples did.

Something tells me this is not the issue; it is that it does not appease your political persuasions.

In the end though, this is all secondary to the main point - your posting style. I will reiterate: Hurricane has described it as patronising and I would have to agree. This is not about your beliefs; as I have hinted, had you chosen another topic the chance that I myself (who has debated at length with plenty of libertarians) would agree with you would have been much, much higher. But in the end, your posting style has more or less driven everyone else from this thread save to make pithy, snarky comments in your direction. Given that this is a very, very broad thread about a topic which I've had a deep, long-standing interest in, it irritates me deeply to see everyone more or less driven away because of the last few pages.

Ball's in your court.

Listen, if someone like Manan said this to me I'd be inclined to take it on board. Manan, while I disagree with him, is far better in his approach than you. I can quote several of your posts if you like to show you have no credibility in terms of style and approach. For you to take offence and post this plea, as if it is for my own sake, is a pisstake.

As always, I am open to discussion. If you think I am wrong, demonstrate it. Do not pretend like you've discussed this issue before as it is hard to believe you when a) avoid discussing it here and b) when you do discuss it get things wrong which you really shouldn't. Personally, if I had the kind of blunder you had a page or two back I'd start being a bit more humble and doubting my position as right as a given. But no, what followed was just more snarkiness. Ironically, I wouldn't mind it as much if you actually discussed the issue properly.

Originally Posted by Fusion

May I humbly suggest that we just move on from this debate? It's been comprehensively covered and has only lead to frustration for all involved. I say we move on to new topics and perhaps redeem this thread.

We can. It is not my intention to down the thread for it to be redeemed. IMO the discussion is very important as it is central to understanding what to take of the recent ongoings. But, let's move on.

I've gotten nothing but indignant and immature posting from you and others simply for stating my persuasions. On that account, you have no right to post the above. If I have been rude, I have at least had the decency to rationalise and explain my position. You have not done so. Worse, you have shown a clear lack of appreciation for even the most basic tenets of my argument - yet you had the temerity to come in posting as if I didn't know what I was talking about or that I was living in some fantasy land. Remember, you started that nonsense.

And I do not take potshots at anyone's mental faculties - or I don't mean to. I think this is a great forum for people here are generally much more intelligent and considerate. It is probably the subject matter which like religion is hard to discuss without offending somebody.

As for you or Burgey coming to different conclusions; I have invited both of you to enter this debate and explain why. As I said to sledger pages ago, I am always open to change. The irony is that you do not have this contemplation to understand that I have done a lot of reading on this issue and might possibly know more than you. But I still explain my position in the hope that you might have something to contribute for which I may not have an answer to and will reconsider my position.

I will say this: what you are arguing I have already heard if not argued myself some while ago. And that is why I am confident in defending my position. I am not sure about you, however, who now in several discussions have only jumped in to insult me or create comparisons between myself and some crazy people. That to me is far more tunnel-minded and is somewhat transparently showing your insecurity to have this discussion.

I have studied this issue more than I care to say. I've studied the political and legal sides to it as well. The latter two tying into my degree. If I post a video it is a shortcut I hope you follow. I can ask you to read books or articles but that requires too much of your time so I post a video which clearly demonstrates the point anyway. Do not mistake that shortcut I route for you as my taking a shortcut in learning this. The fact that I can discuss this issue with depth should show otherwise.

Moreover, I have cited articles - scholarly and otherwise - to show my point; so the claim that I exclusively point to one source is incorrect. In my opinion, it is also irrelevant. If one source has all the answers, then so be it. This picking of sources is just an aside for you to deny what is said. If I cite Friedman and you believe him to be false, then discuss that. Otherwise, it shouldn't matter. What matters is who is right. The two greatest economists of the last century were arguably Keynes and Friedman; the former's work is somewhat discredited for being wrong in many instances and some still ongoing today. Friedman's appeal lasts. Would it make a difference if I cited Hayek - one of the other giants in economic thought - saying basically the same things about government intervention? Ironically, Hayek, who knew Keynes, said he wouldn't have taken his own doctrine as many of his disciples did.

Something tells me this is not the issue; it is that it does not appease your political persuasions.

Listen, if someone like Manan said this to me I'd be inclined to take it on board. Manan, while I disagree with him, is far better in his approach than you. I can quote several of your posts if you like to show you have no credibility in terms of style and approach. For you to take offence and post this plea, as if it is for my own sake, is a pisstake.

As always, I am open to discussion. If you think I am wrong, demonstrate it. Do not pretend like you've discussed this issue before as it is hard to believe you when a) avoid discussing it here and b) when you do discuss it get things wrong which you really shouldn't. Personally, if I had the kind of blunder you had a page or two back I'd start being a bit more humble and doubting my position as right as a given. But no, what followed was just more snarkiness. Ironically, I wouldn't mind it as much if you actually discussed the issue properly.

We can. It is not my intention to down the thread for it to be redeemed. IMO the discussion is very important as it is central to understanding what to take of the recent ongoings. But, let's move on.

Wow dude......great post

And smalishah's avatar is the most classy one by far Jan certainly echoes the sentiments of CW

Yeah we don't crap in the first world; most of us would actually have no idea what that was emanating from Ajmal's backside. Why isn't it roses and rainbows like what happens here? PEWS's retort to Ganeshran on Daemon's picture depicting Ajmal's excreta

Well, I've tried to resist, but I've had to try search for a Milton Friedman video where he suggests that his disciples need to act like smug supercilious bastards but have been unable to find one. I feel this is a real shame.

>>>>>>WHHOOOOOOOOOSHHHHHHH>>>>>>Fascist Dictator of the Heath Davis Appreciation SocietySupporting Petone's Finest since the very start - Iain O'Brien
Adam Wheater - Another batsman off the Essex production line
Also Supporting the All Time #1 Batsman of All Time Ever - Jacques Kallis and the much maligned Peter Siddle.

You could, but the arguments that go to the contrary revolve around Keynesianism which is somewhat dead and has been for about 30-40 years now. All you have now are other people trying to borrow from that disastrous period and hack on some free-market principles to save face and say we can do it better. It's like the bailouts; if they dont work, don't admit defeat, just print more!

I don't really mind though, you can still hack on words of people you admire if it intelligibly advances the discussion. I don't hold the standard that you yourself have to be a nobel award winning economist to have an opinion. Only that it is a relevant and intelligible opinion. Chances are I've heard it anyway .

FTR, I don't agree with him on everything either. The grand scheme of his argument however is definitely right IMO and I don't think anyone has argued it more effectively.

Curiously, Keynesianism ain't dead here. Wasn't dead here in 2008, and isn't now. There's a place for it. And I don't give a **** whether you think otherwise.

Ultimately, the problem has been what you say you've hacked on has not advanced the debate. Moreover you don't hack it on, you substitute it for independent thought of your own. I'm going to tell you what I think (apart from the fact the real World's going to chew you up in about 3 months flat). I don't care whether you agree with it or not. This is an issue in which there are not implicit truths, only opinions.

Notions of a perfect market system is as realistic as the idea of Communist or socialist utopia. Why? Because those of us who've lived a little and aren't busy cutting and pasting this week's socio-economic theory du jour realis the same incentives which drive people to get ahead and innovate also operate to make people want to protect and enhance their position in the market place at the expense of competitors, by fair means or foul. That's why there needs to be regulation. To stop those kinds of excesses.

Tbh, I could have taken a page to say that. I could have used 1,000 words when 100 would do and think myself smart even though those words aren't mine. But I haven't and I won't. Hopefully one day you'll learn to too. You'll need to, else the market will say "who needs this odious buffoon? Give me the kid who thinks for himself, and expresses it cogently and economically. Cos time is money, and my eyes are glazing over".

*btw, the idea of a Nobel Prize for a field of study as subjective and unscientific as economics is deplorable.

Last edited by Burgey; 26-04-2012 at 01:56 PM.

WWCC - Loyaulte Mi Lie"People make me happy.. not places.. people""When a man is tired of London, he is tired of life." - Samuel Johnson

"Hope is the fuel of progress and fear is the prison in which you put yourself" - Tony Benn

The Economics prize wasn't actually one of the original prizes awarded by Nobel, so it's a matter of opinion as to whether to call it a 'Nobel Prize' or not. Though Literature and Peace are hardly scientific and objective categories either, tbf.

The Economics prize wasn't actually one of the original prizes awarded by Nobel, so it's a matter of opinion as to whether to call it a 'Nobel Prize' or not. Though Literature and Peace are hardly scientific and objective categories either, tbf.